Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Market Place
A few times in class, we have mentioned the possibility of Poe lowering his original aims of literary perfection to please the masses. It is true, in order to become a popular writer, one must write in a way that will be widely accepted. It is my belief that Poe understood this and utilized his skills to manipulate the market place in order to sell his work. Although many may see this as the regret of being an artist, is it not true that all professionals, regardless of the area of work, have to doctor their products or personal values in order to make themselves more marketable? It is my belief that Poe did what was necessary in order to appease the literary taste of the public and still retain his personal artistic value.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I believe what you said is true. Every profession today must tweak their agendas to gain in position...just think of all the authors today who send there books for publication and get them back covered in black and red marks from their editor! I believe Poe's writings in the "Poetic Principle" and other such writings show the type of formula Poe followed to gain popularity amongst the masses...though his detailed deconstruction of hoe he wrote "The Raven" seems to me to be a bit to calculated to be the real way that Poe went about writing this poem.
That is more or less what Poe tried to do..appeal to a mass auidence while retaining a lot of what he wanted to do at the same time.
ok, well if this is true ("lowering his original aims of literary perfection to please the masses), it is a sad truth.
though i don't think this is the case. the public often grasp onto the status quo and resist uncomfortable change. literature is no different. Poe was clearly writing from deep passion and inspiration. he knew exactly the levels which his work exhibit, whether it be metaphorical, psychological, etc.
we see poe criticizing of fellow writers so much because i think he thought he stood higher than they did, intellectually, artistically; that he owned something NEW and innovative--and not necessarily purely a condescending EGO of criticism. he was pushing the perception of literature and art in general.
...this certainly requires a change in the status quo. no more wide open whimsy ideals of the transcendentals--time to show BOTH SIDES of the human psyche: the light and DARK--neither existing without the other.
maybe he WAS on a higher level than the public. maybe sometimes that's what it takes.
and i mean, look around you--he's made it into a university senior seminar (he's successful).
maybe he did sacrifice work that he didn't think would be 'accepted' (but perhaps more innovative) for fame, but we certainly don't see it in his lifetime.
a test of time seems the only thing which really matters in his case. i guess he had only to do so much in order to at least put him on the map, you know? so that he was at least there, published, on paper, in history.
on a side note, look at the band radiohead--they're a good example of an artist pushing the boundaries while taking the public along. they do what they want and still get fame and public acceptance. they maybe have the chance to change the status quo of music, in a way. to help get newer, DIFFERENT artists in the spotlight, so as to change entirely the masses PERCEPTION of 'accepted' art.
i hope at least some of this makes sense
Post a Comment